What are you looking for regarding "better"? Do you mean closer? Or better compositions?

Shooting good flower images can be very challenging. Flowers are basically pretty so anyone can take a good image. The bar is really high when it comes to doing something exceptional. I would say yours are in the nice and pretty category, but not exceptional.

The first image has just too much going on in the background. I think it would have helped to be much closer with a simpler shot. You were not able to adequately isolate the foreground flower. I do like the exposure and lighting.

I do prefer the second image mostly because you got closer. I would consider darkening and blurring the background even more. Again I would prefer to see the foreground flower with better isolation from the background. The lighting is a bit flat and uninteresting.

If these were for photo competition, I would say the first would score 6.5-7 and the second would be 7.5-8. Again, I think the bar is really high for flower images. Nice images are very common.

I might call these closeups, but certainly not macros. A true macro is 1:1 for the size of the sensor compared to the size of the image. These are many times larger.

There's a technique that most macro flower photographers forget about. That is to use your depth of field preview button. People tend to forget that they preview the photo wide open and select the aperture arbitrarily. That can lead to surprises.

I compose the image, then change apertures while using the DOF preview button. I then choose between DOF and background blur, trying to achieve a happy medium. I also often do a series of the same composition, changing the apertures. This way I can select the best when viewing on a bigger screen. Of course, a tripod makes this easier and more consistent.

There is a bit of a trade-off in controlling DOF between aperture used and subject distance.

For instance, if you are shooting at MFD (especially with tube), the amount of increase in DOF provided by stopping down is nominal. By moving back a bit from your subject, the DOF relationship/impact of aperture changes can have a more pronounced effect. While this might raise concerns at too much DOF for the BG, there is usually a sweet spot to be found ... and we may only be talking about changing the subject distance a few inches, or less.

Working the two (subject distance / aperture) in concert with each other can help you dial in where your DOF falls off ... and using a tripod (and dof preview) for this indispensable. Personally, I use mostly manual focus/manual aperture lenses, so stopping down for dof preview is inherent to the process ... but Doug's point @ dof preview is valid. It just depends on how exacting you want to be with your dof placement.

I have tried the preview button but with very limited success. I guess my eyes are just not good enough but I cannot really tell what I will get.

I do agree with RB that using a high f stop has a minimal effect on DOF. I usually shoot at f/22 and sometimes higher but that only helps so much. Focus blending is the ideal solution but that requires a tripod and lots of work. I have tried this a couple of times and really have not liked the results. Also remember that a fullframe DSLR will be much worse than an APS-C DSLR. That is another reason I am still using a cropped sensor. A point and shoot can be even better. I got some great results with my G9 but focusing and shooting macros was a real challenge with lots of failures. The shutter lag and limited ISO did not help.

Finally I notice that many flowers really don't have much detail on the petals. Veins and structure are often missing with not much more than a splotchy image. I often find that careful processing is necessary to achieve any interest in the details regardless of focus and DOF.

Personally I prefer a longer lens to give more working distance to subject and also does nicely for bokeh. There are some excellent 150-180 macro lenses out there to be had Tamron, Sigma offer values and quality.

Tripod is a must for true macro, you might do well if you want flexibility and creativity to look into a stabilized macro lens to offer more potential without a tripod.

Selective BG is everything as is light balance for pleasing florals. Manual focusing is helpful too. IMO the smaller and more dainty the subject the less BG distractions you want. Work with colors to help impact your subject or unique patterns in the bokeh that can be creative.

I use a very inexpensive Tamron zoom that has a 180-300 1:2 macro focusing range for much of my floral work, a whopping $125 investment that has paid dividends to me!
Karl

Hope this helps some to get you going to the next steps

By the way, petal detail was mentioned and it is one of the more difficult features to render. Most often the reason is the tendency of digital to over saturate yellows and reds which flushes out the nice details. Try backing down the contrast in these situations or reducing red/yellow saturations. Also the petal details will show nicely with proper use of USM sharpening.

OK you have isolation better here. That light looks harsh. I think if your focus was on the yellow tips closest to us it would help. You can also go more from above to render more in focus at once. The petal to the right holds nice detail and color. Maybe less contrast to help this one too. Color saturation looks good here.

My Tamron is actuall an old 70-300 zoom that has a macro mode switch that holds you to using only the 180-300 range. It is an AF lens but it is slower than slow to focus

I used a Tamron 90 and a Canon 100 and a Tamron 180mm macro, will likely pick up another dedicated Tamron 180 macro.
Hope this helps